Exploring public concerns about geoengineering the climate

UK researchers talk about pumping reflective aerosols into the atmosphere.

Manage the symptoms or go after the root cause? In a way, those are the choices available to deal with climate change. If the task of weaning ourselves off fossil fuels (and reining in deforestation) is too unappealing, a potentially more palatable alternative is geoengineering—intentionally manipulating the climate system. With the large-scale removal of CO2 from the atmosphere currently beyond our grasp, shading the planet with reflective aerosols might be the most effective tool in our kit.

That’s no free lunch, of course. Some aerosols have direct, negative effects on human health, and a hiccup in the system would induce drastic climatic changes. Aerosols cover up the warming effect of greenhouse gases, but they don’t stay in the atmosphere very long. Stop replenishing the aerosols and the planet could very quickly feel the full force of that “hidden” warming. The vulnerability of such a system to international disagreements, war, and even terrorist attacks is obvious.

If all this makes you a little nervous about the idea, you’re not alone. Geoengineering research has been controversial. A perspective in Nature Climate Change describes an effort to engage the public to understand common concerns ahead of one such research project in the UK—the Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE) project.

The SPICE design would involve a pipe running 20 kilometers up to helium blimps that would hold the release nozzles for injecting aerosols into the stratosphere. The project team planned to build a prototype that would extend just one kilometer up into the atmosphere (and pump only water) to work on the engineering challenges of making such a system work in the future.

Before that test got off the ground, the team was asked to get a better handle on how the public would feel about it. To accomplish this, the team organized two-day “workshops” with a sampling of people in three British cities, talking with 32 people in total. At each workshop, guided (but open-ended) discussions allowed researchers to really probe the participants’ views. This wasn’t about accurately polling the UK; it was about gaining a deeper understanding of different perspectives.

On the first day, discussions focused on the general concept of aerosol geoengineering. Although the participants felt that scientists should be researching such technologies (keeping our options open), there was a lot of discomfort that geoengineering would only put off the need to reduce greenhouse gases.

Interestingly, some of the hesitation to engage in geoengineering came from its perceived unnaturalness. The paper notes, “Stratospheric aerosols in particular were also depicted by some as contributing to a disassociation of humankind from the physical world, with uncertainties and global risks deemed likelier as a result.” The planet has a track record we’re generally familiar with, whereas unprecedented efforts like this (though our fossil fuel emissions are an experiment of their own) may inspire fear of the unknown. We’re all raised on cautionary tales of hubris, so perhaps some even see shades of Icarus’ wings in these aerosol-spraying blimps.

Another major theme was the need for international agreement and governance of any geoengineering project. For example, say the modification of the climate system carried out by one nation has negative impacts in another. Would the country running the system be held responsible?

Most doubted international agreement would be easy to achieve. As one person put it, “It’s a concern because when they’ve had these climate change seminars [for example, Kyoto] and groups, nobody ever agrees, and what guarantee would we have that everybody would actually agree over something like this?”

On the second day of the workshops, talk zeroed in on the SPICE test itself. The researchers noticed a real shift here—participants were much more supportive of the prototype trial than they were of actual large-scale geoengineering efforts. As long as the test would be safe for people in the vicinity and wasn’t likely to cause environmental harm, they were OK with it going forward.

Mostly, the participants wanted to understand why the researchers designed the test the way they did. What did they expect to learn? Would it really be applicable to a full-size version of the system? And, of course, why spend money on this instead of something else?

As it turns out, the SPICE field test was submarined by patent issues, though the rest of the research project continues. Still, public engagement like this helps plot out smoother sailing for this project and others like it. Geoengineering has the potential to be a publicly sticky issue, so it’s wise to understand the reasons for queasiness early on.

One thing the participants wanted was transparency and clear communication throughout the project. Knowing this could ensure that funding and coordination to make that happen is prioritized. The more viewpoints you collect now, the more productive the national conversation can be later. If the big concerns are addressed, you might have a better chance at getting people on the same page to work toward informed decisions.

To avoid a repeat of the public controversies that have exploded over climate science and genetically modified organisms, it will help to understand public reactions before they’re splashed across the opinion pages of major newspapers.

121 Reader Comments

I am reaaallly wary of pumping tons and tons of aerosols into the atmosphere. We still can't properly track a snowstorm half the time, do we really think we can predict the effect of what this aerosols will do?

It's that basic chemistry..? Your comparison is like comparing Apples to Bananas. Tracking climate/weather isn't the same as know how compound/chemical X will reach when exposed to compound/chemical Y.

No, but (and a disclaimer here, I'm a physicist, not an atmospheric chemist), we don't necessarily have the ability to completely replicate the environment these chemicals will be reacting in, in terms of radiation, pressure, temperature, and so on. For a historical example, consider CFCs. These were very stable in the lower reaches of the atmosphere, but in the stratosphere, around ozone and exposed to a more intense UV flux...well, I hardly need to go on. So there could be unexpected results from injecting aerosols into the upper atmosphere.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that we will eventually end up engaging in geoengineering whether people like it or not, because I feel it's unlikely we'll actually respond to global warming quickly enough to head it off with just emission reductions and because certain types of geoengineering are under the circumstances relatively simple and nearly common sense (eg., carbon sequestration by some method or other to reduce CO2 concentrations faster than purely natural processes would allow).

Ecofascists would much to prefer tax the people to the pre-stone age era. All fire is forbidden.

What about choosing the most cost-effective solution, if global warming really is a problem? I would prefer for my climate to be warmer, that is not to expend a significant amount of money for heating living spaces 8 months a year.

Your side has already won the argument over the "ecofascists". Were you even paying attention during the Copenhagen summit? Our leaders agreed that we should be doing something, but that we won't. This was a direct consequence of people like you.

Your side is the reason we're talking about geoengineering today. And maybe that's okay. I'm not against the proposals on principle. We need an evidence-based process for evaluating our options that is sensitive to costs as well as environmental consequences. But to get there we first need to stop shouting at each other.

Global emissions are rising and they will continue to rise for the foreseeable future. Where were the ecofascists? We shouldn't put the breaks on globalization. But it will taper off eventually, and emissions with it. We need take economic development seriously as well as climate change.

Ecofascists would much to prefer tax the people to the pre-stone age era. All fire is forbidden.

What about choosing the most cost-effective solution, if global warming really is a problem? I would prefer for my climate to be warmer, that is not to expend a significant amount of money for heating living spaces 8 months a year.

You can't be serious... "Global Warming" does not mean it just gets a bit warmer everywhere. It means severe disruptions in local climate and weather patterns, affecting rainfall and droughts, changing patterns of energy transport via water and air streams...

There are indications that both the ongoing droughts in the US and the cold long winters in Europe are part of what "Global Warming" comes with.

We flat out don't know. We are children when it comes to understanding climate. NONE of the models have had any accuracy worth mentioning.

There was a small geo engineering experiment done in the pacific, where tons of iron filings were released. Nothing that was expected to happen did. And they got a wholly different result. What happened was the iron was sucked into diatoms and it ended up sequestering carbon to the sea floor. It was supposed to (IIRC) create cloud cover.

So until we have a much better understanding we shouldn't be pumping chemicals anywhere they aren't already.

However one experiment that would be safe and interesting is to use some system to create artificial clouds out of water, as the water will fall out of the atmosphere in a relatively short time. We also know water is a stable molecule and we know it will not alter any natural chemistry.

We flat out don't know. We are children when it comes to understanding climate. NONE of the models have had any accuracy worth mentioning.

There was a small geo engineering experiment done in the pacific, where tons of iron filings were released. Nothing that was expected to happen did. And they got a wholly different result. What happened was the iron was sucked into diatoms and it ended up sequestering carbon to the sea floor. It was supposed to (IIRC) create cloud cover.

So until we have a much better understanding we shouldn't be pumping chemicals anywhere they aren't already.

However one experiment that would be safe and interesting is to use some system to create artificial clouds out of water, as the water will fall out of the atmosphere in a relatively short time. We also know water is a stable molecule and we know it will not alter any natural chemistry.

Ecofascists would much to prefer tax the people to the pre-stone age era. All fire is forbidden.

What about choosing the most cost-effective solution, if global warming really is a problem? I would prefer for my climate to be warmer, that is not to expend a significant amount of money for heating living spaces 8 months a year.

You can't be serious... "Global Warming" does not mean it just gets a bit warmer everywhere. It means severe disruptions in local climate and weather patterns, affecting rainfall and droughts, changing patterns of energy transport via water and air streams...

There are indications that both the ongoing droughts in the US and the cold long winters in Europe are part of what "Global Warming" comes with.

Actually a study fund the droughts we had here int he Us had little to nothing to do with "global warming."

There was a small geo engineering experiment done in the pacific, where tons of iron filings were released. Nothing that was expected to happen did. And they got a wholly different result. What happened was the iron was sucked into diatoms and it ended up sequestering carbon to the sea floor. It was supposed to (IIRC) create cloud cover

Citation?

There have been iron fertilization experiments with the intent to increase photosynthetic activity and as a result pump carbon to the seafloor. I've never heard of a scheme to release iron in the ocean and "create cloud cover".

We're going to get the nations of the world to agree that the usual first-world countries be allowed to control the weather of the entire planet? Right or wrong, that's how this is going to be perceived.

Since we've had such great progress in getting the nations of the world to simply cut their greenhouse-gas emissions, I'm sure we'll have no problem getting everyone to agree to spend trillions of dollars to let the USA and Europe dial the planet's weather to suit themselves.

The engineering issues in geo-engineering are daunting; possibly insurmountable for generations. The political issues, however, make that look like child's play, and anyone who thinks humans are going to magically find harmony in the next few hundred years hasn't spent enough time looking at history.

Aerosols cover up the warming effect of greenhouse gases, but they don’t stay in the atmosphere very long.

Very long? Perhaps at a geological time scale... CO2/200 years, NO2/~115 years, CH4/~12 years - and while methane has a much shorter life than carbon dioxide its waaaaaay more efficient at trapping heat.

Ecofascists would much to prefer tax the people to the pre-stone age era. All fire is forbidden.

What about choosing the most cost-effective solution, if global warming really is a problem? I would prefer for my climate to be warmer, that is not to expend a significant amount of money for heating living spaces 8 months a year.

Move closer to the equator. Warming the entire planet so you can save $20 a month on heating will be completely negated by the tornado and extreme weather insurance you'll need to buy for your home, not to mention the increased costs you'll experience at the grocery store. I'm not an "ecofascist", but I do study atmospheric sciences with my univeristy, and you could do to read a few books and watch fewer youtube videos.

There was a small geo engineering experiment done in the pacific, where tons of iron filings were released. Nothing that was expected to happen did. And they got a wholly different result. What happened was the iron was sucked into diatoms and it ended up sequestering carbon to the sea floor. It was supposed to (IIRC) create cloud cover

Citation?

There have been iron fertilization experiments with the intent to increase photosynthetic activity and as a result pump carbon to the seafloor. I've never heard of a scheme to release iron in the ocean and "create cloud cover".

Correct. It was an "unapproved" experiment off the western coast of Canada by a dude named Russ George (George Russ?). The iron was meant to increase algal blooming/phytoplankton life, which would absorb CO2 then sink to the bottom of the ocean when they died. It had some positive effects, and there has supposedly even been a return of some fishing in those coastal areas that had been previously lost where the waters had been near/dead zones.

Since the underlying problem is the cost of clean energy, why isn't our focus on intensifying research to lower that cost? By far the most promising technological pathway involves the use of molten salts within a nuclear reactor which combines a high heat capacity with high temperatures (useful process heat) and low pressures. We should be trying to maximize the economic potential of our nuclear systems by improving efficiency and dramatically lowering liability. We should be looking at super breeding possibilities to minimize our need for mining fissile and storing the depleted uranium (future fuel).

We can expect improvements in the efficiency of liquid hydrocarbon fuel synthesis, especially when nuclear process heat is integrated. But this cycle is carbon-positive, so we must prepare ourselves with lower cost alternatives. NH3 appears to fit the bill here (very abundant and readily available feedstocks), but we are no where near ready to meet this future challenge (we should have updated storage and distribution tech and affordable direct-ammonia fuel cells).

If we continue to ignore the economic implications of higher cost energy, not only will we fail to adequately respond to the environmental problem, but our economies will continue to contract through disruptive shocks promoting destabilization. We have been sitting on this problem for decades and our paralysis needs to come to an end if we are to avoid the kinds of catastrophes that litter the landscape of history.

Ecofascists would much to prefer tax the people to the pre-stone age era. All fire is forbidden.

What about choosing the most cost-effective solution, if global warming really is a problem? I would prefer for my climate to be warmer, that is not to expend a significant amount of money for heating living spaces 8 months a year.

You can't be serious... "Global Warming" does not mean it just gets a bit warmer everywhere. It means severe disruptions in local climate and weather patterns, affecting rainfall and droughts, changing patterns of energy transport via water and air streams...

There are indications that both the ongoing droughts in the US and the cold long winters in Europe are part of what "Global Warming" comes with.

Actually a study fund the droughts we had here int he Us had little to nothing to do with "global warming."

Fact is most of the Severe great Planes droughts here in the US occurred before the 1950 when the global temps was much cooler than it is today.

Rain patterns seem to be most heavily influenced by oscillations in sea temperatures - which in turn either cool surface sea temps and decrease rain fall (La Niña for example) or bring warmer waters to the surface (thereby increasing evaporation and humidity update, etc) and leading to greater rainfall (El Niño - there are oscillations at work similarly in all parts of the oceans). Global warming definitely has an effect on these oscillations but the how is very complicated as the oceans have their own cycles and because of thermoclines (temperature differences at various depths) and various conveyors (think wacky jet streams in the ocean), and because of delay distortions the distributions of these temperate waters and where they will pop up aren't completely understood. Just recently there was an article here outlining how surprising the delay between the surface heat was effecting the deepest parts of the ocean.

I am of the "moving away or atleast limiting fossile fuels until we can find an alternative" camp. what is stagnating research into alternative fuels so much besides obvious interests? is the tech just not there yet or being stifled? its kind of hard to believe in this day and age that a cheap alternative can't be found and adopted by the masses.

Ecofascists would much to prefer tax the people to the pre-stone age era. All fire is forbidden.

What about choosing the most cost-effective solution, if global warming really is a problem? I would prefer for my climate to be warmer, that is not to expend a significant amount of money for heating living spaces 8 months a year.

You can't be serious... "Global Warming" does not mean it just gets a bit warmer everywhere. It means severe disruptions in local climate and weather patterns, affecting rainfall and droughts, changing patterns of energy transport via water and air streams...

There are indications that both the ongoing droughts in the US and the cold long winters in Europe are part of what "Global Warming" comes with.

Actually a study fund the droughts we had here int he Us had little to nothing to do with "global warming."

Fact is most of the Severe great Planes droughts here in the US occurred before the 1950 when the global temps was much cooler than it is today.

Rain patterns seem to be most heavily influenced by oscillations in sea temperatures - which in turn either cool surface sea temps and decrease rain fall (La Niña for example) or bring warmer waters to the surface (thereby increasing evaporation and humidity update, etc) and leading to greater rainfall (El Niño - there are oscillations at work similarly in all parts of the oceans). Global warming definitely has an effect on these oscillations but the how is very complicated as the oceans have their own cycles and because of thermoclines (temperature differences at various depths) and various conveyors (think wacky jet streams in the ocean), and because of delay distortions the distributions of these temperate waters and where they will pop up aren't completely understood. Just recently there was an article here outlining how surprising the delay between the surface heat was effecting the deepest parts of the ocean.

Well it's been a well known fact for a VERY long time that the ocean temp changes lag behind global temp changes mainly due to the fact that it takes hundreds of years to warm and cool the oceans.

I am of the "moving away or atleast limiting fossile fuels until we can find an alternative" camp. what is stagnating research into alternative fuels so much besides obvious interests? is the tech just not there yet or being stifled? its kind of hard to believe in this day and age that a cheap alternative can't be found and adopted by the masses.

Solar is expensive and inefficient and requires a lot of land space, hydrogen is expensive and dangerous, batteries are inefficient and expensive and dangerous and heavy, wind requires a lot of land space (but less than solar) and is more unpredictable than solar. Energy storage is probably the biggest problem of all of them. Nothing stores energy as densely as easily accessible and efficiently as petroleum .

Ecofascists would much to prefer tax the people to the pre-stone age era. All fire is forbidden.

What about choosing the most cost-effective solution, if global warming really is a problem? I would prefer for my climate to be warmer, that is not to expend a significant amount of money for heating living spaces 8 months a year.

You can't be serious... "Global Warming" does not mean it just gets a bit warmer everywhere. It means severe disruptions in local climate and weather patterns, affecting rainfall and droughts, changing patterns of energy transport via water and air streams...

There are indications that both the ongoing droughts in the US and the cold long winters in Europe are part of what "Global Warming" comes with.

Actually a study fund the droughts we had here int he Us had little to nothing to do with "global warming."

Fact is most of the Severe great Planes droughts here in the US occurred before the 1950 when the global temps was much cooler than it is today.

Rain patterns seem to be most heavily influenced by oscillations in sea temperatures - which in turn either cool surface sea temps and decrease rain fall (La Niña for example) or bring warmer waters to the surface (thereby increasing evaporation and humidity update, etc) and leading to greater rainfall (El Niño - there are oscillations at work similarly in all parts of the oceans). Global warming definitely has an effect on these oscillations but the how is very complicated as the oceans have their own cycles and because of thermoclines (temperature differences at various depths) and various conveyors (think wacky jet streams in the ocean), and because of delay distortions the distributions of these temperate waters and where they will pop up aren't completely understood. Just recently there was an article here outlining how surprising the delay between the surface heat was effecting the deepest parts of the ocean.

Well it's been a well known fact for a VERY long time that the ocean temp changes lag behind global temp changes mainly due to the fact that it takes hundreds of years to warm and cool the oceans.

Well it's not like I said it was established hundreds of years ago Hell, we're still trying to get a handle just on ENSO alone (; But yeah. We have surface temp records (by instrument) for a couple hundred years, but only written weather reports/fishing notes for ocean temps and even then only at the surface (of the water).

I don't know about these particular proposals, but I think the concept of geoengineering needs to be taken seriously I would argue that this is true regardless of one's position on anthropogenic climate change. We know that over time the climate is chaotic and, long-term, can be extremely disruptive to human civilization: contemplate what a new ice age with mile deep glaciers down to the mid-Atlantic states would be like and I do not think it would be a great leap that humanity would be interested in moderating large swings in climate, anthropogenic or not.

OTOH, I agree that this must be carefully considered and the risks of unintended consequences are high. Still, that's not an argument not to research and consider the possibilities.

Since the underlying problem is the cost of clean energy, why isn't our focus on intensifying research to lower that cost? By far the most promising technological pathway involves the use of molten salts within a nuclear reactor which combines a high heat capacity with high temperatures (useful process heat) and low pressures. We should be trying to maximize the economic potential of our nuclear systems by improving efficiency and dramatically lowering liability. We should be looking at super breeding possibilities to minimize our need for mining fissile and storing the depleted uranium (future fuel).

This, although this is being worked on. There are blueprints for a sizable test reactor in the process of being approved. It is to use a cyclotron accelerator to bombard (IIRC) a proton stream into a sub-critical pile of spent (AKA waste) material from a traditional fission reactor. This does require energy input to run but returns roughly a factor of 5 more energy in return.

Benefits- no run-away of fission reactions because the pile is sub-critical, if you want to turn down the heat you turn off the cyclotron which is a passive action rather than having to use carbon rods to actively thwart fission chain reactions- no "meltdowns", operating temp is already as hot as it is going to get- destruction of all this troublesome nuke waste we have, it gets fissioned down into far safer elements!

After approval it will need funding, and a number of years, to build. So yeah, when that hits the news push for it.

Aerosols cover up the warming effect of greenhouse gases, but they don’t stay in the atmosphere very long.

Very long? Perhaps at a geological time scale... CO2/200 years, NO2/~115 years, CH4/~12 years - and while methane has a much shorter life than carbon dioxide its waaaaaay more efficient at trapping heat.

Ecofascists would much to prefer tax the people to the pre-stone age era. All fire is forbidden.

What about choosing the most cost-effective solution, if global warming really is a problem? I would prefer for my climate to be warmer, that is not to expend a significant amount of money for heating living spaces 8 months a year.

Move closer to the equator. Warming the entire planet so you can save $20 a month on heating will be completely negated by the tornado and extreme weather insurance you'll need to buy for your home, not to mention the increased costs you'll experience at the grocery store. I'm not an "ecofascist", but I do study atmospheric sciences with my univeristy, and you could do to read a few books and watch fewer youtube videos.

I didn't know that simply being a student made you an expert on this subject...

I'm sorry, could you point out where I claimed to be an expert? I'll be sure to remove it. Looking back on what I've shared, I don't see anything that I've posted that someone with a mild interest and a preponderance to read a few books wouldn't be able to conclude for themselves. Perhaps the authority you're picking up on comes from my having done those things along with guidance from some notable minds and actively contributing members of the academic atmospheric sciences. Honestly, I couldn't tell you.

«discomfort that geoengineering would only put off the need to reduce greenhouse gases»

What? Wear shoes to eliminate the discomfort of the cold in winter? But I wanna do penance!

The medieval mentality of penance and sacrifice that has imbued the whole global warming histrionics comes into sharp relief here.

Now, I do have to say I completely agree with the SPICE project, I like how they are going about it, and I for one would be willing to voluntarily support it with my own personal donation.

Nothing wrong with a rational, engineered solution to a perceived problem, as opposed to the eco-fascism of tax and regulatory rigidity (and consequent unemployment) we've seen so far from the environmentalist lobby.

Since the underlying problem is the cost of clean energy, why isn't our focus on intensifying research to lower that cost? By far the most promising technological pathway involves the use of molten salts within a nuclear reactor which combines a high heat capacity with high temperatures (useful process heat) and low pressures. We should be trying to maximize the economic potential of our nuclear systems by improving efficiency and dramatically lowering liability. We should be looking at super breeding possibilities to minimize our need for mining fissile and storing the depleted uranium (future fuel).

This, although this is being worked on. There are blueprints for a sizable test reactor in the process of being approved. It is to use a cyclotron to bombard (IIRC) proton stream into a sub-critical pile of spent (AKA waste) material from a traditional fission reactor. This does require energy input to run but returns roughly a factor of 5 more energy in return.

Benefits- no run-away of fission reactions because the pile is sub-critical, if you want to turn down the heat you turn off the cyclotron which is a passive action rather than having to use carbon rods to actively thwart fission chain reactions- no "meltdowns", operating temp is already as hot as it is going to get- destruction of all this troublesome nuke waste we have, it gets fissioned down into far safer elements!

After approval it will need funding, and a number of years, to build. So yeah, when that hits the news push for it.

Agreed. To answer his other question though: a significant cross-section of people who care about global warming have a distaste for Nuclear energy, regardless of the method.

I am of the "moving away or atleast limiting fossile fuels until we can find an alternative" camp. what is stagnating research into alternative fuels so much besides obvious interests? is the tech just not there yet or being stifled? its kind of hard to believe in this day and age that a cheap alternative can't be found and adopted by the masses.

The problem is you can't beat solar and geothermal energy that was put into making carbon compounds. It is free.All we have to do is transport it. Anything we do today has to come with some modern cost in creating it AND moving it.

Since the underlying problem is the cost of clean energy, why isn't our focus on intensifying research to lower that cost? By far the most promising technological pathway involves the use of molten salts within a nuclear reactor which combines a high heat capacity with high temperatures (useful process heat) and low pressures. We should be trying to maximize the economic potential of our nuclear systems by improving efficiency and dramatically lowering liability. We should be looking at super breeding possibilities to minimize our need for mining fissile and storing the depleted uranium (future fuel).

This, although this is being worked on. There are blueprints for a sizable test reactor in the process of being approved. It is to use a cyclotron accelerator to bombard (IIRC) a proton stream into a sub-critical pile of spent (AKA waste) material from a traditional fission reactor. This does require energy input to run but returns roughly a factor of 5 more energy in return.

Benefits- no run-away of fission reactions because the pile is sub-critical, if you want to turn down the heat you turn off the cyclotron which is a passive action rather than having to use carbon rods to actively thwart fission chain reactions- no "meltdowns", operating temp is already as hot as it is going to get- destruction of all this troublesome nuke waste we have, it gets fissioned down into far safer elements!

After approval it will need funding, and a number of years, to build. So yeah, when that hits the news push for it.

Why is it expected that we'll dramatically lower reactor cost by adding a new and expensive particle accelerator to the mix? I'm not saying that there can not be any use to this approach, but it seems to ignore the importance of focusing on the economics.

I am of the "moving away or atleast limiting fossile fuels until we can find an alternative" camp. what is stagnating research into alternative fuels so much besides obvious interests? is the tech just not there yet or being stifled? its kind of hard to believe in this day and age that a cheap alternative can't be found and adopted by the masses.

The problem is you can't beat solar and geothermal energy that was put into making carbon compounds. It is free.All we have to do is transport it. Anything we do today has to come with some modern cost in creating it AND moving it.

Never really thought of it this way before, but you just made me think about this fact: we're also talking about having to generate energy in real time, vs using energy that has had millions of years to accumulate.

I am of the "moving away or atleast limiting fossile fuels until we can find an alternative" camp. what is stagnating research into alternative fuels so much besides obvious interests? is the tech just not there yet or being stifled? its kind of hard to believe in this day and age that a cheap alternative can't be found and adopted by the masses.

The problem is you can't beat solar and geothermal energy that was put into making carbon compounds. It is free.All we have to do is transport it. Anything we do today has to come with some modern cost in creating it AND moving it.

Geothermal is probably our best bet, but yeah, moving it involves storing it. Geothermal is only available in limited locations. Storage of energy is still the biggest issue. We're seeing some promising stuff coming out with graphene and some other materials, but they're a ways off still :-/

I am of the "moving away or atleast limiting fossile fuels until we can find an alternative" camp. what is stagnating research into alternative fuels so much besides obvious interests? is the tech just not there yet or being stifled? its kind of hard to believe in this day and age that a cheap alternative can't be found and adopted by the masses.

The problem is you can't beat solar and geothermal energy that was put into making carbon compounds. It is free.All we have to do is transport it. Anything we do today has to come with some modern cost in creating it AND moving it.

Never really thought of it this way before, but you just made me think about this fact: we're also talking about having to generate energy in real time, vs using energy that has had millions of years to accumulate.

Exactly. Basically what you pay at the pump are: taxes, (50%) refining, transport ($0.02 per gal) and lifting and exploration. At no point do we have to gather the grow and harvest biomass, heat/compress it. Which are the most significant costs.

Due to markets, we prioritize lowest lifting cost areas first. Right now that is the middle east. After that we'll move to the next most lucrative area... And eventually the US which has the highest lifting costs of any country.

It's important to explore these options. As unsavoury and dangerous as geoengineering is, in the end we may simply have no other choice. There's a lot of inertia in climate. We could actually solve the anthropogenic greenhouse gas problem and still wind up with catastrophic climate changes in our future.

Using the analogy of a train heading off a cliff, even if we shut off the engine that's driving us over the edge, we're probably going to need a good braking system if we're to avoid plunging into the valley below.

Since the underlying problem is the cost of clean energy, why isn't our focus on intensifying research to lower that cost? By far the most promising technological pathway involves the use of molten salts within a nuclear reactor which combines a high heat capacity with high temperatures (useful process heat) and low pressures. We should be trying to maximize the economic potential of our nuclear systems by improving efficiency and dramatically lowering liability. We should be looking at super breeding possibilities to minimize our need for mining fissile and storing the depleted uranium (future fuel).

This, although this is being worked on. There are blueprints for a sizable test reactor in the process of being approved. It is to use a cyclotron accelerator to bombard (IIRC) a proton stream into a sub-critical pile of spent (AKA waste) material from a traditional fission reactor. This does require energy input to run but returns roughly a factor of 5 more energy in return.

Benefits- no run-away of fission reactions because the pile is sub-critical, if you want to turn down the heat you turn off the cyclotron which is a passive action rather than having to use carbon rods to actively thwart fission chain reactions- no "meltdowns", operating temp is already as hot as it is going to get- destruction of all this troublesome nuke waste we have, it gets fissioned down into far safer elements!

After approval it will need funding, and a number of years, to build. So yeah, when that hits the news push for it.

Why is it expected that we'll dramatically lower reactor cost by adding a new and expensive particle accelerator to the mix? I'm not saying that there can not be any use to this approach, but it seems to ignore the importance of focusing on the economics.

This represents a fundamental change in reactors process.

A huge chunk of current reactor costs are safety related, in operation and waste disposal. A design that uses an inherently safer process leads to cheaper, ultimately. A design that disposes of a highly toxic material we have laying around flips on its head the biggest problem with nuclear reactors have had till this point.

I am of the "moving away or atleast limiting fossile fuels until we can find an alternative" camp. what is stagnating research into alternative fuels so much besides obvious interests? is the tech just not there yet or being stifled? its kind of hard to believe in this day and age that a cheap alternative can't be found and adopted by the masses.

The problem is you can't beat solar and geothermal energy that was put into making carbon compounds. It is free.All we have to do is transport it. Anything we do today has to come with some modern cost in creating it AND moving it.

Geothermal is probably our best bet, but yeah, moving it involves storing it. Geothermal is only available in limited locations. Storage of energy is still the biggest issue. We're seeing some promising stuff coming out with graphene and some other materials, but they're a ways off still :-/

The problem is you still have to gather/produce it. Solar is 100w per sq meter, our best cells are 20%, so 20w per square meter is availible. How many square meters are on your car? 2 maybe. So 40w. Your 100 HP engine is 74,000 watts. That's one heck of a charge time! 1,850 seconds of charge time (0.5 hours) to use all 100HP for one second.

Bio diesel et al is also limited because plants are low 2-4% efficient.

Since the underlying problem is the cost of clean energy, why isn't our focus on intensifying research to lower that cost? By far the most promising technological pathway involves the use of molten salts within a nuclear reactor which combines a high heat capacity with high temperatures (useful process heat) and low pressures. We should be trying to maximize the economic potential of our nuclear systems by improving efficiency and dramatically lowering liability. We should be looking at super breeding possibilities to minimize our need for mining fissile and storing the depleted uranium (future fuel).

This, although this is being worked on. There are blueprints for a sizable test reactor in the process of being approved. It is to use a cyclotron to bombard (IIRC) proton stream into a sub-critical pile of spent (AKA waste) material from a traditional fission reactor. This does require energy input to run but returns roughly a factor of 5 more energy in return.

Benefits- no run-away of fission reactions because the pile is sub-critical, if you want to turn down the heat you turn off the cyclotron which is a passive action rather than having to use carbon rods to actively thwart fission chain reactions- no "meltdowns", operating temp is already as hot as it is going to get- destruction of all this troublesome nuke waste we have, it gets fissioned down into far safer elements!

After approval it will need funding, and a number of years, to build. So yeah, when that hits the news push for it.

Agreed. To answer his other question though: a significant cross-section of people who care about global warming have a distaste for Nuclear energy, regardless of the method.

So, if we can agree about what the technical solution should be (reducing clean energy costs through the most promising nuclear technology), then we can begin the process of changing public opinion. We should not be beholden to a mentality that is going to kill us.

It's important to explore these options. As unsavoury and dangerous as geoengineering is, in the end we may simply have no other choice. There's a lot of inertia in climate. We could actually solve the anthropogenic greenhouse gas problem and still wind up with catastrophic climate changes in our future.

Using the analogy of a train heading off a cliff, even if we shut off the engine that's driving us over the edge, we're probably going to need a good braking system if we're to avoid plunging into the valley below.

True, but the problem I have with this is the Earth has a biophere capable of removing 8ppm in 6 months, every year. Given that CO2 is plant fuel, whenever fuel is more abundant it is used. There are some net balance concerns but given the size of the planet's bioshere I think it would sequester it and in a few years we'd plummet completely naturally. The largest forest on the planet - in Canada is still frozen much of the year. When that wakes up it'll be able to sequester carbon at unprecedented rates, second only to the oceans. I think the statistic is every 5 days the Canadian forest completely filters the world's air. (Or something like that- as in processes the same volume)